Challenges, Assets, and Opportunities in the Columbia River Basin Stephen M. Waste, Director Columbia River Research Laboratory Western Fisheries Research Center U.S. Geological Survey Part I. Challenges Still the Balkans, after all these years! ► Legacy – Fragmentation, stove piping, turf battles, litigation and treaties ► Today – complex, societal scale issues, will affect multiple species and habitats ► Tomorrow – How do we address scientific uncertainty? . End the battle of the “experts” in protracted litigation . Break circularity perpetuated by lack of agreement on facts . By determining the facts, fundamental science can shrink the uncertainty surrounding management options Key driver in Columbia River Basin: Endangered Species Act ►Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy (All H Approach) – Federal Caucus ►ESA Recovery Plans and FCRPS BiOp Implementation Plans – NMFS ►Large scale monitoring for forest health (AREMP, PiBo) – USFS Is the CR Federal Caucus addressing landscape scale issues? ►Action Agencies = ACOE, BOR, and the Bonneville Power Administration ►Regulatory Agencies = National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service ►Unaligned agencies = USGS, EPA, NPS, NRCS Regional dynamics ► Money – Status Quo Maintenance, Washington a beneficiary of differential tariff rates ► Politics – Neighbors but not friends, Oregon v. Washington, divergent politics/economics ► Planning – BPA Fish Accords with CRITFC, why did this happen? NPCC ► Science – Loss of state agency research capacities in Oregon, Washington, and California Will we ever achieve de-listing? ► No mechanism for determining the effectiveness of the regional restoration programs ► No ability to redirect program emphasis or priorities therefore, cannot improve effectiveness ► Objective of all the restoration activities is a return to a more normative state ► Without consideration of landscape scale stressors like climate change and aquatic invasive species, this be wishful thinking What do we find? Shared challenges, fragmented solutions ► Lack adaptive management – no dedicated R,M, and E . Response: convocation of PNAMP by NPCC and BPA ► Lack predictive capacity – because no decision support systems comparable to what ACOE uses for flood control, BPA uses for hydro system operations ► Lack of effort to enfranchise economic sectors, Tribes, NGOs ► Current consortia are all resource management agency officials . Response to date – USGS decision support system pilots: ►Yakima – agriculture and Tribal fish issues ►Methow – connectivity, winter recreation, irrigation Ramping up to the landscape scale ► Challenges of scale . Fragmentation of research priorities . Restoration projects are opportunistically sited . Ignore out of basin effects – from landscape scale stressors . NMFS/BPA reporting requirements, out of synch with data collected ► Challenge of time . 3 year funding model cannot sustain longitudinal research Overcoming the institutionalization of non-comparability Swiss like approach to planning = typology of uniqueness ► 54 Subbasin Plans – no basis for comparability ► 12 Recovery Plans – therefore no basis for evaluation ► 17 National Fish Habitat Action Plans = no basis for learning ► 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives Can we break this cycle? Monitoring: the missing ingredient for adaptive management ► Monitoring provides the basis for evaluation, but it continues to be the missing ingredient for making resource management programs in the NW more effective ► Could provide the baseline for evaluating climate change, invasive species, other landscape scale stressors ► Data provides foundation and reference point for dedicated research projects Part II. Assets The stakes are big! Unique regional funding mechanisms ►Northwest Power Act (1980) – Fish andWildlife Program . Direct funded restoration projects $140M . Reimbursable funded work $ 90M ►Pacific Coastal Sates Salmon Recovery Fund $90M $320M Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program of the NPCC ►Functions as distributive system of political spoils, benefits include: . enfranchisement of constituencies . development of specialized expertise . a veritable army of practitioners . depth of experience . historical perspectives Part III. OPPORTUNITES What are the implications for the GN LCC? These unique and well funded restoration programs are: ► curative, rather than preventative ► focused on small scale, recovery of individual populations of listed species ► not addressing landscape scale stressors Ecological issues: issue specific regional responses to landscape scale stressors ► Invasive Species = Columbia Basin Work Group, 100th Meridian ► Contaminants = Columbia Basin Toxic Reduction Task Force ► Climate change = . Climate Impacts Group (CIG – University Washington, Seattle, WA . Oregon Climate Research Institute (OCCRI – OSU, Corvallis, Oregon) . LCCS and Climate Science Centers . Conferences (PNW Climate Science), initiatives (R2O), pilot projects (Yakima and Methow) ► Monitoring & Evaluation = CR Gorge Commission Initiative Opportunities for change ► How: dedicate a portion of current programs and the LCC funding streams to address landscape scale issues that require a long term response ► When: CR Treaty process and the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program Amendment, two opportunities for addressing ecological issues requiring fundamental science ► Next: Subbasin plans of NPCC are due for revision A new ecological issue: Columbia River Treaty ► Original CRT about river operations and flood control ► State Department challenge to “modernize” by bringing in “ecosystem function” ► Water is the lifeblood of the CB ecosystem ► Negotiating changes in flow regime for ecosystem benefits Three landscape scale ecological issues in the CR Treaty ►Restoration of anadromy to the blocked areas of Upper Columbia River; i.e. above Grand Coulee ►Mainstem habitat modeling, implications of changes in flow regime for ecosystem benefits ►Lower river/estuary flood plain reconnection Step 1 – Identify High Level Indicators of common interest ► Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Vital Sign Indicators 51 ► Pacific NW Aquatic Monitoring Partnership High Level Indicators 30 ► Large River Monitoring Program ? ► Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ? ► National Ecological Observatory Network Microbes to atmospheric chemistry 482 Step 2 – Get started, establish a baseline now! ► Baseline provides a reference point for identifying trends and causal factors ► Provides associated data for use by projects, such as air, water quality ► Contribute to the development of predicative capacity – everyone wants a crystal ball! ► Everyone wants increased capacity, but no one party wants to pay for it all Step 3 – Decision Support Systems: stepping stones to adaptive management ► How do we serve and support the mid-range group of resource users? ► Need to develop, implement, and test Decision Support Systems as a way to associate a independent variables; e.g., climate change to other variables ► Learn what a DSS is and how it works: . Methow River Subbasin – tomorrow afternoon Tim Nieman and Karen Jenni . Yakima river Subbasin – stay tuned for a special issue of the journal Climatic Change Step 4. Sponsor a demonstration project: Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area Auspicious alignment of factors: ► unique governance structure: Federal legal apparatus, local implementation ► large scale experiment, living laboratory, east-west and vertical ecological and socioeconomic gradients ► includes towns and industry seeking sustainability not just resource extraction (Google, Microsoft) ► protected status of area confers benefits of NPS like reference sites, can anchor long range monitoring ► provides a durable structure for longitudinal research Lack of leadership landscape scale issues = opportunity for GN LCC Like the tramp of a mighty army, is the sound of an idea whose time has come -- Oscar Wilde Questions?.